Special issue on human factors and ergonomics methods

Abstract

The human factors and ergonomics (HFE) professional has access to a diverse and flexible toolkit of HFE methods. These include well over 100 structured HFE methods available for designing and evaluating aspects of device, operator, team, organization, and system performance (Stanton et al., 2013, 2014). As well as informing the design of devices, tools, and environments, these methods allow the HFE practitioner to contribute to the design of policies, procedures, training and education programs, to risk and safety management via activities such as risk assessment, incident reporting, and accident analysis, and to the development of national and international regulatory frameworks. The changing nature of work and increasing use of technologies such as artificial intelligence, robotics, and big data are raising questions about the utility of HFE methods. In addition, there are various ongoing issues relating to HFE methods, such as reliability and validity and a research–practice gap. As a result, there is a large body of ongoing work involving the development, testing, and application of both existing and new HFE methods. The aim of this special issue is to provide researchers and practitioners with an opportunity to present research and papers focused specifically on HFE methods (e.g., methodological development, validation, and comparisons) and discuss current and future issues. Accordingly, we welcomed submissions from all aspects of the HFE discipline including physical, physiological, psychophysiological, psychological, cognitive, social, and organizational ergonomics. The first paper in the SI tackles the methodological challenges faced by researchers and practitioners head‐on (Salmon et al., 2022: Methodological issues in systems HFE: Perspectives on the research–practice gap, reliability and validity [of HFE methods], and prediction [of the behavior of individuals, teams, organizations and sociotechnical systems]). Human factors researchers with between 4 and 36 years experience (from postdoctoral research fellows to full professors) of applying human factors methods debate a series of questions about the research‐practice gap. As might be expected, there is a good‐natured, but hot debate, argument regarding these issues. None of the issues received complete agreement as shown in the summary tables. The majority saw a significant research‐practice gap, which is perhaps not too surprising. For most, if not all, disciplines it can take 10–20 years before research becomes common practice, so why should HFE be any different? Perhaps more could be done to reduce this time gap by both researchers and practitioners, such as the partnership approach advocated in the paper. The second debate questioned whether HFE methods require evidence of reliability and validity. Again there was a mixed response, but the majority of responses suggested that this was a necessity particularly if the methods are being used for safety‐critical assessments. The final debate centered on the use of HFE methods to make predictions. The responses were somewhat muted in this respect. Typically, predicting the behavior of individuals, teams, organizations, and sociotechnical systems is notoriously difficult, although that should remain an aspiration of our discipline. Nevertheless, it is time to have these debates openly so that our research and practice are focused on addressing the challenges identified in this paper. The remaining papers in the special issue have been organized into the themes of the micro (addressing the individual human–machine interaction), meso (addressing team interactions, including interactions with nonhuman agents), and macro (addressing wider system interactions which will encompass the microlevel and mesolevel). The point here the method is being used to analyze the system at the appropriate level. It is accepted that some methods can be applied at different levels and that the boundaries between the micro, meso, and macro levels can be blurred. Nevertheless, it is a useful framework within which to consider the contributions to this special issue.